But go ahead and keep your shoving your entitled elitist opinion down anyone, it just makes you look ignorant.

IT makes you look ignorant when you say that "Wahhh its tooooo hard to assemble a PC" without giving it more than 5 seconds of effort, looking at the manual, or scouring the internet for help"

To be fair I think you are taking for granted several factors.

You have to know what components you want. If you want good value you will need a comparison chart. If you want to be assured you have the best value, you will have to do this for each component. Then you have to shop around buying each part at the best price from different resellers. Then you get them all, assemble them, install software, firewall, antivirus, configure network stuff and so on.

I enjoy doing such things, but for some people they just don't want to do it. When I was growing up there were always small stores who would do this for you, now though, its big retailers who just want to sell you junk that goes obsolete in a couple of years.

That is the only reason I have my PS3. I could not afford a PC, I cannot afford a PC (soon I get a £3000 reimbursement, so I'll be dropping 500 on a rig) so it was that or bust.

I mean I get that PC's are generally better, primarily due to their flexibility but it was so much cheaper to buy my PS3 than erect a rig which, at the time, was looking to be what? £800 to be comparable to a PS3? I know what I was going to buy.

Some people just don't have the cash, I could have possibly saved up that money over time but I'd have missed out on SO many games in the meantime for bugger all difference since most of these problems are recent.

That is the only reason I have my PS3. I could not afford a PC, I cannot afford a PC (soon I get a £3000 reimbursement, so I'll be dropping 500 on a rig) so it was that or bust.

I mean I get that PC's are generally better, primarily due to their flexibility but it was so much cheaper to buy my PS3 than erect a rig which, at the time, was looking to be what? £800 to be comparable to a PS3? I know what I was going to buy.

Some people just don't have the cash, I could have possibly saved up that money over time but I'd have missed out on SO many games in the meantime for bugger all difference since most of these problems are recent.

The Ps3 Cost over £400 when it was launched in 2007. -_-That's 5 years ago by the way.

I think consoles will be succeeded by Onlive. Consoles have become worse due to DRM. Onlive has the DRM publishers dream of while doing much better than modern consoles.

Onlive is cheap. The 'console' is much cheaper than a PS3 or 360. Or you can just use your PC. No I don't mean a gaming rig, I'm talking about the crappy lappy that most console owners will have to use the internet. You might want an HDMI cable and a controller.

Onlive is hassle free. You'll never wait for a game to install or download patches. As long as your connection is good, you can play.

Onlive will probably never require additional hardware. Consoles can go seven years without a new generation but Onlive can just upgrade their servers to handle the latest games.

Onlive can be responsive. This should be a ridiculous thing to say, but it can theoretically beat a console that runs at 30 fps. How? By having big computers that run a number of games. A computer that runs ten games at 30 fps can render a frame in about 3 milliseconds, while the 30fps console takes 33 milliseconds to render a frame. If you can get a ping below 30, you can get that rendered frame while the equivalent console is still rendering.

Onlive can offer better price/performance than PC hardware. Consoles have the same architecture as PCs, and PCs have a competitive market. Consoles can only win on price/performance by cheating, subsidising the console with more expensive games. Onlive can have a real edge. They can satisfy 1,000 gamers with enough hardware to run 500 games, as long as 500 gamers don't all log in at once. And if they use a big computer to run many games, they save on hard drive/RAM costs. They don't have to worry about distribution media either, they could make a game that required 1TB hard drive space.

Bad Jim:I think consoles will be succeeded by Onlive. Consoles have become worse due to DRM. Onlive has the DRM publishers dream of while doing much better than modern consoles.

Onlive is cheap. The 'console' is much cheaper than a PS3 or 360. Or you can just use your PC. No I don't mean a gaming rig, I'm talking about the crappy lappy that most console owners will have to use the internet. You might want an HDMI cable and a controller.

Onlive is hassle free. You'll never wait for a game to install or download patches. As long as your connection is good, you can play.

Onlive will probably never require additional hardware. Consoles can go seven years without a new generation but Onlive can just upgrade their servers to handle the latest games.

Onlive can be responsive. This should be a ridiculous thing to say, but it can theoretically beat a console that runs at 30 fps. How? By having big computers that run a number of games. A computer that runs ten games at 30 fps can render a frame in about 3 milliseconds, while the 30fps console takes 33 milliseconds to render a frame. If you can get a ping below 30, you can get that rendered frame while the equivalent console is still rendering.

Onlive can offer better price/performance than PC hardware. Consoles have the same architecture as PCs, and PCs have a competitive market. Consoles can only win on price/performance by cheating, subsidising the console with more expensive games. Onlive can have a real edge. They can satisfy 1,000 gamers with enough hardware to run 500 games, as long as 500 gamers don't all log in at once. And if they use a big computer to run many games, they save on hard drive/RAM costs. They don't have to worry about distribution media either, they could make a game that required 1TB hard drive space.

Plenty of people hate Onlive on principle because they treat games like a service and not a good.

jpoon:Perfectly stated Jim, consoles are the shittiest consoles you can possibly own, and they are routinely dwarfed by even the most inexpensive PC's.

PC is where IT's at, and where IT has always been, and even the "next gen" (I.E. current "gen" PC) will not change this. Sure they might get a new Uncharted, Mario, or twenty new Halo's but they are all pretty weak compared to the lineup that PC gamers will get their hands on at much cheaper prices. I know where I'll be spending most of my time!

Edit: Honestly anybody who has the desire to assemble a computer damn well can if they can take a couple simple hours to read how the construction is done. It is almost childs play these days, the most difficult part they'll likely have is applying the thermal paste (which is rather simple), I'm absolutely certain my father could construct one after reading a diagram and maybe watching a short video like the one linked above. If there's a will, there's a way! Guys don't need to make a mountain out of a mole-hill.

Or I could just, y'know, buy a system and play it rather than watch a diagram and a youtube vid. This seems that this always seems to fly over the head over most of you guys, I simply don't understand it.

If your gonna talk about the solid benefits of PC's sure. If your gonna mention what consoles are becoming now, no prob. It does have its flaws, as was mentioned in the vid.

However, to sound so arrogant as to assume that there is no reason why somebody would go console over PC is ridiculous. Do you people get pissy when somebody uses pancake mix over pancakes from scratch?

Is it not possible that the console has exactly what people are looking for, in an easy to install, cheap package? It does exactly what people are looking for it to do. Play games.

I'm pretty sure the point of the vid was to point out how consoles are becoming so similar to PC's while still failing miserably at competing with them. Sure they work for many people but they are becoming as complex to use as PC's while still looking and performing so much worse, the benefits are becoming smaller and smaller. I agree with Jim that the payoff of consoles is dwindling very quickly. This will be renewed with the next batch of consoles but you can guarantee they are going to be even more complex and even more rigid and inflexible. I would take the time to learn about PC's because there's no denying that they are more than worth the effort.

I don't get pissy at people using consoles, I have a PS3 myself and still play it occasionally. Whatever floats your boat as they say.

PCs are def. the way to go if you are at all inclined into geeky techyness. If you are not and can't figure out how to use a computer past email and internet surfing then perhaps counsels are more convenient. I play everything on the pc and have a ps3 for those ps3 exclusive titles i am into (ie Uncharted, Resistance, God of War, Ratchet and Clank exc). Occasionally i swap my ps3 with a friend's XBox 360 so he can catch up on the ps3 exclusive titles and i can catch up on the xbox exclusive titles (ie Gears of War)

As someone who has in the past rabidly defended consoles against any and all comers I would most likely have taken issue with this until earlier this week. I have been house sitting for my fiance's elder brother and have been able to take advantage of his relatively high spec gaming PC. The experience blew me out the water,I have to say the advantages are near innumerable before you even get to mods. Seeing Skyrim re-textured to the hilt and fixed of all the little annoying bugs was something of a revelation.

I whole heatedly agree with Mr Sterling and am now off to try convince the future missus we really need a gaming PC instead of another bloody dog XD

That is the only reason I have my PS3. I could not afford a PC, I cannot afford a PC (soon I get a £3000 reimbursement, so I'll be dropping 500 on a rig) so it was that or bust.

I mean I get that PC's are generally better, primarily due to their flexibility but it was so much cheaper to buy my PS3 than erect a rig which, at the time, was looking to be what? £800 to be comparable to a PS3? I know what I was going to buy.

Some people just don't have the cash, I could have possibly saved up that money over time but I'd have missed out on SO many games in the meantime for bugger all difference since most of these problems are recent.

Just because PCs are superior doesn't necessarily mean anything is wrong with buying console, especially if your resources are tight. Don't sweat it.

On the U.S. side I saw the Deus Ex Complete Collection up yesterday for only 14usd during a flash sale. I just got every Deus Ex game ever, plus all of Human Revolution's DLC/Add-ons for 14usd. This weekend is going to be a good weekend.

Let me lay this out... Pure and simply put, consoles are responsible for the degradation of the gaming industy. They are sold for less than the cost of the hardware. What does that mean to us, the money is going to be made back somewhere. Games. As a result game devs are required to heighten their prices because they have to pay a percentage to the hardware manufacturer. It also means that as more consoles are sold/break/replaced the more games are needed to make the console float. This inevitably turns into what we have today... crappy cookie cutter games... _______ game 3 or 4 or 5 just because they need the money and we will pay to play the shit.

When the cost to build the hardware is on the consumer, the cost does not need to be factored into all the rest of it. XBox and PS3 were both underpowered computers from day one. They NEVER had superior graphics. Steam was already around which is more convenient than anything else for buy->play. Hit the buy button, launch game, walk away for 10-30 minutes (maybe an hour or 2 for slower intarwebs), come back and play. I have a 7yr old pc that I built myself for 1k, and it has never died, never been beaten by any console, and I can play any game I want from Monkey Island and Daggerfall to CSS and Borderlands to Diablo 3 and MW3. I have a library of hundreds of games that are actually good and most of which I paid sub 30$ for when they first came out!!! You ALWAYS pay in the end. Business cannot survive without profit.

Point being make the console cost what it should cost and lower the cost of development so games can go back to being about making a phenominal game, and not about paying for the platform!

him over there:Plenty of people hate Onlive on principle because they treat games like a service and not a good.

Plenty of people hate Steam, Origin, PSN and XBLA for doing that as well. That issue could so easily be an advantage for consoles but it's not likely to be the case next gen.

No the platforms you mentioned are a digital distribution service, you buy a license to play the game. Onlive streams the games, you have nothing and they have total control.

Those digital distribution services can still, technically speaking, lock you out of games you've paid for. This has actually happened. It's no good having the game on your hard drive if they can just delete it anyway.

Plenty of people hate Steam, Origin, PSN and XBLA for doing that as well. That issue could so easily be an advantage for consoles but it's not likely to be the case next gen.

No the platforms you mentioned are a digital distribution service, you buy a license to play the game. Onlive streams the games, you have nothing and they have total control.

Those digital distribution services can still, technically speaking, lock you out of games you've paid for. This has actually happened. It's no good having the game on your hard drive if they can just delete it anyway.

and microsoft baning your xbox live acount with the sub time is any difrent? i wont disagree they could lock you out but i would have to ask Why would they?

give me one reason and online retailer that requiers its customers to put trust in them "lock" them out?

thanatos388:Um...pcs are expensive and require upgrades to the pc itself to play new games. They are still a bigger hassle. That outweighs anything a pc can do as most gamers wont spend 15000 dollars to have higher definition graphics that add fuck all to the game itself.

I WAS WAITING FOR THIS.

I have a very basic system, it's almost 6 years old. Was refurbished when it was bought for me (So we're probably looking onto about 8 now), I've spent about £30 on second hand hardware (Yes it does exist) and about £40 on some new Ram.

The computer was £200 to start with. Oh and last time I checked I was playing Mass effect 3 (It's just an example of a recent game) on medium graphical settings.

So what, it's cost me about £270 and I'm still a head of current gen consoles.

So I dare someone to run up to me and say that you need to spend thousands of pounds/ dollars to get a decent gaming computer.

Oh also, I completely agree with everything said in this video. :3

And everyone who owns a console is going to be able to find a PC at even a fraction of that value? Just a year ago I spent a couple of weeks looking on Newegg for a computer that could run most PC games and I could not find one that could run a Skyrim level game on lower settings for under $1200. Which, including warranty, taxes and everything else probably costs at least $1400. And that's on LOWER settings. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I don't think it's likely that anyone is dishing out enough $1500 computers at a $200 value for everyone who wants one to be able to buy one.

There's a couple big areas other than cost where I prefer consoles. First of all, having a controller with analog sticks, it makes a huge difference for me, especially in games where movement is very important. Dark Souls is a game that I would have so much issue playing with a mouse and keyboard. Unfortunately as many people have said this point is kind of moot, as you can buy controllers for computers.

However, one that still does hold up is local multiplayer, which is sadly an area of gaming that isn't getting nearly as much attention anymore. Online gaming is alright, but often when I have friends over, or am at a friends house I want to play a game with them face to face. Super Smash Bros, Gears of War, Halo, all games that I much prefer to play with people in the same room. You could argue that you can do that with computers, but that's counting on everyone not only owning a computer and the game, but also having lugged their set up over to your place. Which having tried to do several times in the past, usually ends up being a massive hassle that doesn't work out (I have several rather unreliable friends). And what happens when it doesn't work out? We plug in the one Wii and play Super Smash Bros

If this is even true, you got COMPLETELY ripped off on that PC. Two years ago I built my PC for about €650 (had to buy everything, couldn't recycle a monitor or a case or some ram. Also had to buy windows 7) and I'm running Skyrim on high settings, it works perfectly fine. Can also run Crysis on high, which is still one of the best looking games of this generation.

On the U.S. side I saw the Deus Ex Complete Collection up yesterday for only 14usd during a flash sale. I just got every Deus Ex game ever, plus all of Human Revolution's DLC/Add-ons for 14usd. This weekend is going to be a good weekend.

It was €7.99 yesterday if I recall on steam here in the EU or 9.99 for the DLC included.

If this is even true, you got COMPLETELY ripped off on that PC. Two years ago I built my PC for about €650 (had to buy everything, couldn't recycle a monitor or a case or some ram. Also had to buy windows 7) and I'm running Skyrim on high settings, it works perfectly fine. Can also run Crysis on high, which is still one of the best looking games of this generation.

Your PC costs twice what the most expensive model of 360 cost 7 years ago when it launched.

Build me a PC using only tech from seven years ago, at the prices they would have cost you seven years ago. Spend only €325.

If this is even true, you got COMPLETELY ripped off on that PC. Two years ago I built my PC for about €650 (had to buy everything, couldn't recycle a monitor or a case or some ram. Also had to buy windows 7) and I'm running Skyrim on high settings, it works perfectly fine. Can also run Crysis on high, which is still one of the best looking games of this generation.

Your PC costs twice what the most expensive model of 360 cost 7 years ago when it launched.

Build me a PC using only tech from seven years ago, at the prices they would have cost you seven years ago. Spend only €325.

Now make it run Skyrim.

I think you're forgetting the fact that on top of having cheaper games and being technically better in every way to its console brethren, it's also a fucking computer. If I hadn't spent the extra money on the graphics card and a fancier CPU it would have been about €400-500 so when you think about it, I only spent about €150-300 on my above average gaming rig.

That is the only reason I have my PS3. I could not afford a PC, I cannot afford a PC (soon I get a £3000 reimbursement, so I'll be dropping 500 on a rig) so it was that or bust.

I mean I get that PC's are generally better, primarily due to their flexibility but it was so much cheaper to buy my PS3 than erect a rig which, at the time, was looking to be what? £800 to be comparable to a PS3? I know what I was going to buy.

Some people just don't have the cash, I could have possibly saved up that money over time but I'd have missed out on SO many games in the meantime for bugger all difference since most of these problems are recent.

The Ps3 Cost over £400 when it was launched in 2007. -_-That's 5 years ago by the way.

Between discounts, the fact that stores don't do RRP and a swish deal I got mine for 150. Even without those deals a comparable rig would still have been more expensive. How do I know this? Because numbers, the PS3's components were more expensive than the PS3 itself, they sold at a loss for a long time, buying a Blu ray player alone was initially more expensive than a PS3 for goodness' sake.

Regardless it's irrelevant, the simple fact is I lacked the money to drop on a PC which was better or equivalent to the consoles available and this was 5 years ago when the differences weren't quite so pronounced. I was offering an alternative explanation to the ones Jim provided.People buying consoles now? Well I'd wager most are for three reasons:1. Loyalty because people tend to think like that.2. Friends, well I know most of mine play PS3 so I would have an issue buying something else, between my (now friendly gaming, once competitive) clan and just my friends with a PS3 it would suck to switch to PC, only two of my actual friends have gaming PC's.3. Ignorance, not being harsh but a lot of people get these things bought for them and mum and dad aren't necessarily going to think beyond *Head to GAME, buy console and CoD*. It's just not something a lot of people have knowledge about, even buying for themselves people can be unaware of the options and PC's retain the stigma of overpriced contraptions which aren't great for gaming unless you're up to date with the tech.

The only downside is exclusives, but whether it was the chicken or the egg, my preferred genre is now FPS, and those almost without fail show up on PC sooner or later. So when a new Silent Hill is announced and I imagine for an instant that it'll be good a tear comes to my eye because I won't be able to play it. Then the reviews come out and I realize I had nothing to fear.

No the platforms you mentioned are a digital distribution service, you buy a license to play the game. Onlive streams the games, you have nothing and they have total control.

Those digital distribution services can still, technically speaking, lock you out of games you've paid for. This has actually happened. It's no good having the game on your hard drive if they can just delete it anyway.

and microsoft banning your xbox live account with the sub time is any different? i wont disagree they could lock you out but i would have to ask Why would they?

give me one reason and online retailer that requires its customers to put trust in them "lock" them out?

Okay, guess I should have done the research first.

EA was banning whole accounts, including single player games, for forum violations. But they've stopped. It was possibly a technical error rather than EA being deliberately evil.

Lest we forget the amount of free update content out there for the PC. None of this "You must charge for content updates" shite seen on XBL. A truly great PC game will evolve and grow over time adding new content as a common courtesy.

There is also the great community of people maintaining abandoned/ public domain content out there for free. What to play the brilliant Adventure classic "Beneath a steel sky"? Well just install scumvv and it literally couldn't be any easier. This is all legal and above board. The backwards compatibility with programs like Dos-Box and sites listing literally hundreds of free, classic games.

Oh and mods. So many mods. If you don't know how amazing the modding community is then i pity you. They are capable of making better content than some of the original games.

meganmeave:Look, I enjoy PC gaming from time to time, but to say you can't think of anything that makes consoles better than PCs in any way? How about the fact that when I install a $50 game on my PC, it more often then not requires me to spend 1-3 hours getting the damn thing to run on my stupid PC because whatever they used doesn't conform to my sound/video/processor of choice.

Because of the boring conformity, at least I know my games will be compatible with my 360 or PS3. And yes, I love mods, but I can at least see this as being a benefit to boring old console gaming.

That's your own experience, not necessarily an accurate portrayal of PC gaming at large.

I for one usually have no problems with my PC gaming.

But you bring up an important point nonetheless, that individual experiences are going to be different for people when it comes to PC gaming, where on Consoles they're more likely to be similar.

Some PC gamers prefer the control they have over the game itself, the settings, mods and so forth.

I just like having a mouse and keyboard. I can't stand most modern controllers.

As a PC gamer who converted from xbox, I think that PC's have basically dominated this console cycle. Sure, the Wii was successful from a business perspective, and the PS3 and Xbox360 are both remarkable pieces of hardware, PC's have largely remained the same. Where the success comes from is the community and the developers. Look at steam. It is far more convenient for me to use my credit card to pick up a game from home and immediately download it rather than waiting in line at gamestop. The PC community is full of geniuses who often craft unique and awesome content for games, including patches the developers couldn't be bothered to make. See the restored content mod for kOTOR 2. Other than that, I'd just be repeating the Jimquisition's thoughtful and balanced approach to the topic. Unless the next console cycle radically changes video gaming, I think the PC will continue to enjoy the success and admiration of PC gamers, along with the scorn of jealous console players.

What was that last game he was showing? The one with the space navy? The graphics looked really good on it. Not that I care about graphics because I'm too cool for that (ahem). But if anyone could pass on the name I'd like to, uh, evaluate the gameplay <cough>.

I never watched Jim because I always assumed he would be like another guy we all know and love.Then I realized that Jim actually uses evidence to back up his accusations.

In my personal experience, I have found PC's to be easier to maintain and cheaper in the long run. Instead of swapping consoles I can get a new graphics card or processor, spend 275 every 6 years. When I got the RROD the first time I thought it was ok and I sent it in and they fixed it but the second one I got made me realize that the 360 is actually a piece of shit. Some work great, and you can play them to death, others were made in some Peruvian jungle camp where they used them to smuggle cocaine and prop up broken down jeeps. The PS3 I got was used and it worked great, actually, flawlessly, and it was relatively cheaper but the games library is iffy. The Wii (also used) was more fun than the other two because it hasn't broken and it has a large library of games. The quick pick up games are more fun during the dorm parties because you can just hang out and pass the controllers without a bunch of coaching.

My PC has the largest library, was the 2nd cheapest to buy and I thought ahead and got an awesome case. Ive only had to switch the processor out and Ill have to do a gut job this year but it can still play just about any game out there.

SonOfVoorhees:PC gamers care more about graphics and physics than the actual game....these things are not important. Making the graphics better with a mod dont make the game better. The game is what it is, the story etc can not be changed. Each to their own i guess. Just buy the games you love to play and you will be fine.

You are both right and wrong. Morrowind adds in atmosphere and depth when tuned right. Remove the fog - and let the eye see the whole island! This really inspires. Also graphical mods for MW are not that common. There are mods that rework gameplay a lot - like adding need to eat, rebalancing, fixing bugs and issues. Those things cannot be applied on any console version. Also: look at Nehrim for Oblivion. This is a fanmade entirely new game with absolutely different EVERYTHING - from props to storyline. And it's actually better then Oblivion. Will it appear on consoles? Never. Look at projects like Morroblivion or Andoran. They also will never get to consoles. And wonderful mods like Master of Orion for Civilization IV? Nope, mods are far beyond only graphical fixes.